Pub Date : 2022-08-22DOI: 10.1177/13657127221120957
I. Cohen
Introduction: Court testimonies of mental health expert witnesses (MHEWs) received scholarly attention regarding paradigmatic differences, and ethical issues, neglecting the testimony experience. The study examines MHEWs’ testimony experience in sexual assault proceedings in Israel. Methods:16 interviews. MHEW were recruited using chain referral sampling. Interviews were analyzed based on the constructive dialectical model. Results: Three main themes were conceptualized: MHEWs’ initial image of the court, their perception of mental health and legal languages, and their perception of court conduct as a theatrical play. The themes address the experience of tension between law and mental health along with an unprecedented experience of congruence that emerges when: 1. MHEWs based their testimonies on evidence-based tests and therapeutic interventions which value objectivity, as opposed to focusing primarily on the subjective experience, accommodating the evidence-based legal debate; 2. When MHEWs and legal practitioners formed an interpersonal connection, in accordance with key relational therapeutic elements.
{"title":"An Unforeseen Alliance: The Experience of Mental Health Professionals when Testifying in Sexual Assault Criminal Proceedings","authors":"I. Cohen","doi":"10.1177/13657127221120957","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221120957","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Court testimonies of mental health expert witnesses (MHEWs) received scholarly attention regarding paradigmatic differences, and ethical issues, neglecting the testimony experience. The study examines MHEWs’ testimony experience in sexual assault proceedings in Israel. Methods:16 interviews. MHEW were recruited using chain referral sampling. Interviews were analyzed based on the constructive dialectical model. Results: Three main themes were conceptualized: MHEWs’ initial image of the court, their perception of mental health and legal languages, and their perception of court conduct as a theatrical play. The themes address the experience of tension between law and mental health along with an unprecedented experience of congruence that emerges when: 1. MHEWs based their testimonies on evidence-based tests and therapeutic interventions which value objectivity, as opposed to focusing primarily on the subjective experience, accommodating the evidence-based legal debate; 2. When MHEWs and legal practitioners formed an interpersonal connection, in accordance with key relational therapeutic elements.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"407 - 425"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42385785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-25DOI: 10.1177/13657127221114498
Olivia K. H. Smith
The beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) standard of proof is the foundation of criminal court proceedings in the U.S. However, both empirical and field studies alike demonstrate that jurors do not correctly interpret and apply the standard. Misinterpretations of the standard can have large implications for criminal defendants on trial. Thus, researchers and legal scholars have attempted to clarify the standard through various methods (e.g. quantification, reasoning, linguistic simplification, and procedural changes), and some of these methods have promising features. The purpose of the current review is to provide a comprehensive overview of these proposals and determine future directions for researchers and legal practitioners.
{"title":"The beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof: Juror understanding and reform","authors":"Olivia K. H. Smith","doi":"10.1177/13657127221114498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221114498","url":null,"abstract":"The beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) standard of proof is the foundation of criminal court proceedings in the U.S. However, both empirical and field studies alike demonstrate that jurors do not correctly interpret and apply the standard. Misinterpretations of the standard can have large implications for criminal defendants on trial. Thus, researchers and legal scholars have attempted to clarify the standard through various methods (e.g. quantification, reasoning, linguistic simplification, and procedural changes), and some of these methods have promising features. The purpose of the current review is to provide a comprehensive overview of these proposals and determine future directions for researchers and legal practitioners.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"291 - 308"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45212210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/13657127221088716
{"title":"Corrigendum to Making the case for ECRIS: Post-‘Brexit’ sharing of criminal records information between the European Union and United Kingdom","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/13657127221088716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088716","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"287 - 287"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44417844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1177/13657127221104651
Zhuhao Wang
American evidence law is puzzling. It is essentially a large class of exclusionary rules barring certain types of otherwise relevant evidence from reaching the trier of fact at trial, although the same types of evidence would largely be regarded as valuable in the civil law system or simply in everyday life. For outsiders—especially those from civil law countries, which favour the principle of free proof—such peculiarity is difficult to understand. It is not an overstatement to say that the law of evidence simply never developed in civil law countries. As an outsider to the common law system, the author of this article probed into literatures regarding rationales for American evidence law, with a focus on the ‘jury control’ theory raised by James Bradley Thayer, who described evidence law as ‘child of the jury system’ in the late nineteenth century. Taking a close look at the complex, dynamic relationship between the common law jury and American evidence law, the author argues that it is time for the child (evidence law) to grow up by departing from jury thinking. American evidence scholarship should shift at least partially away from jury-based trials and toward other contexts. Such a shift will make evidence law more engaged with today's legal environment and on a global scale.
{"title":"The peculiarity of American evidence law: An outsider's observation and reflection","authors":"Zhuhao Wang","doi":"10.1177/13657127221104651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221104651","url":null,"abstract":"American evidence law is puzzling. It is essentially a large class of exclusionary rules barring certain types of otherwise relevant evidence from reaching the trier of fact at trial, although the same types of evidence would largely be regarded as valuable in the civil law system or simply in everyday life. For outsiders—especially those from civil law countries, which favour the principle of free proof—such peculiarity is difficult to understand. It is not an overstatement to say that the law of evidence simply never developed in civil law countries. As an outsider to the common law system, the author of this article probed into literatures regarding rationales for American evidence law, with a focus on the ‘jury control’ theory raised by James Bradley Thayer, who described evidence law as ‘child of the jury system’ in the late nineteenth century. Taking a close look at the complex, dynamic relationship between the common law jury and American evidence law, the author argues that it is time for the child (evidence law) to grow up by departing from jury thinking. American evidence scholarship should shift at least partially away from jury-based trials and toward other contexts. Such a shift will make evidence law more engaged with today's legal environment and on a global scale.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65356710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1177/13657127221104649
Y. Daly, C. Dowd, Aimee Muirhead
Drawing on qualitative research with criminal justice professionals, this article explores the practical operation of provisions allowing for inferences to be drawn from silence at the point of police questioning in Ireland. The article examines (1) pre-interview disclosure and the timing of the invocation of inferences within the detention period; (2) the manner in which suspects are informed about the possible consequences of any failure to answer questions or mention certain facts; and, (3) the value and impact of inferences at trial. Findings include the need to reconsider the late disclosure approach adopted to police interrogation in Ireland, while maintaining separate inference interviews; difficulties with the current ‘ordinary language’ examples used to explain inference provisions to suspects; and, a notable distinction between the use of inferences in particular courts in the Irish criminal process.
{"title":"When you say nothing at all: Invoking inferences from suspect silence in the police station","authors":"Y. Daly, C. Dowd, Aimee Muirhead","doi":"10.1177/13657127221104649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221104649","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on qualitative research with criminal justice professionals, this article explores the practical operation of provisions allowing for inferences to be drawn from silence at the point of police questioning in Ireland. The article examines (1) pre-interview disclosure and the timing of the invocation of inferences within the detention period; (2) the manner in which suspects are informed about the possible consequences of any failure to answer questions or mention certain facts; and, (3) the value and impact of inferences at trial. Findings include the need to reconsider the late disclosure approach adopted to police interrogation in Ireland, while maintaining separate inference interviews; difficulties with the current ‘ordinary language’ examples used to explain inference provisions to suspects; and, a notable distinction between the use of inferences in particular courts in the Irish criminal process.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"249 - 270"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46949647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-16DOI: 10.1177/13657127221088328
Michele Panzavolta, E. Maes
The article discusses the rationales for excluding illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases starting from two recent judgments of the European Court of Justice on mass data collection. The two decisions concern the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the retention of metadata in breach of EU law. According to the ECJ, exclusion may be justified by on the basis of the principle of effectiveness and the consequent need to protect the suspects’ rights (protective principle). Based on its analysis of these recent cases, the article demonstrates how important the choice of a rationale for excluding evidence is. It discusses the different exclusionary principles that could be adopted and illustrates their practical implications. Finally, the article advances a proposal of a cascade system of principles for exclusion of evidence in the context of criminal proceedings in Europe.
{"title":"Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union","authors":"Michele Panzavolta, E. Maes","doi":"10.1177/13657127221088328","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the rationales for excluding illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases starting from two recent judgments of the European Court of Justice on mass data collection. The two decisions concern the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the retention of metadata in breach of EU law. According to the ECJ, exclusion may be justified by on the basis of the principle of effectiveness and the consequent need to protect the suspects’ rights (protective principle). Based on its analysis of these recent cases, the article demonstrates how important the choice of a rationale for excluding evidence is. It discusses the different exclusionary principles that could be adopted and illustrates their practical implications. Finally, the article advances a proposal of a cascade system of principles for exclusion of evidence in the context of criminal proceedings in Europe.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"199 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43070613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-09DOI: 10.1177/13657127221095885
V. Ulloa, Nicolás Pietrasanta, Rocío Acosta
The intermediary system is a special measure designed to support the participation of vulnerable witnesses in the judicial system. In Chile, this model was initially incorporated in six regions with the application of Law 21.057 in October 2019. The measure establishes that a specially trained professional from the criminal justice system must facilitate communication during a trial between the court and child victims or witnesses of sexual or other serious crimes through the use of a linked room. This study analyses the perceptions of intermediaries and other members of the justice system in relation to the first year of implementation of the intermediary system based on information obtained through the use of focus groups and a survey. The results show an overall positive assessment of the experiences with and functioning of the ‘judicial intermediation’ and portray some of the best practices and facilitating conditions for the correct operation of the scheme as well as the difficulties and challenges for other Chilean regions and countries.
{"title":"Intermediaries in Chile: Facilitating the right of child victims and witnesses to participate and be heard in criminal trials","authors":"V. Ulloa, Nicolás Pietrasanta, Rocío Acosta","doi":"10.1177/13657127221095885","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221095885","url":null,"abstract":"The intermediary system is a special measure designed to support the participation of vulnerable witnesses in the judicial system. In Chile, this model was initially incorporated in six regions with the application of Law 21.057 in October 2019. The measure establishes that a specially trained professional from the criminal justice system must facilitate communication during a trial between the court and child victims or witnesses of sexual or other serious crimes through the use of a linked room. This study analyses the perceptions of intermediaries and other members of the justice system in relation to the first year of implementation of the intermediary system based on information obtained through the use of focus groups and a survey. The results show an overall positive assessment of the experiences with and functioning of the ‘judicial intermediation’ and portray some of the best practices and facilitating conditions for the correct operation of the scheme as well as the difficulties and challenges for other Chilean regions and countries.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"223 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47602091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1177/13657127221078336
T. Mosaka
While it has revolutionised Evidence scholarship in the Euro-American world (mainly common law jurisdictions), the New Evidence Scholarship (‘NES’) movement is yet to arrive on African shores. African Evidence scholarship still largely reflects the relatively antiquated ‘golden age of doctrinal Evidence scholarship’, anchored by leading figures such as Bentham, Stephen, Thayer and Wigmore. This essay draws from the clarion call made historically by Biko and Sobukwe, among several other Africans, for Africa to avoid occupying a seat at a table that has already been set for it, typically in Europe. Africa approaches NES relatively late in the game, but it is contended in this essay that this presents the continent with an opportunity to draw insights from the developments of NES in the Euro-American world with a view of making its own contribution to this burgeoning field of scholarship. This essay suggests that the recognition of the special relativity of evidential proof may be a useful foundation for much broader theorising about evidence and proof in Africa. The essay concludes by using two models of proving the conduct and unlawfulness elements of the crime of corruption to illustrate the implications of this probative theory of special relativity.
{"title":"Here is a table: A prolegomenon to a future new evidence scholarship in Africa","authors":"T. Mosaka","doi":"10.1177/13657127221078336","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221078336","url":null,"abstract":"While it has revolutionised Evidence scholarship in the Euro-American world (mainly common law jurisdictions), the New Evidence Scholarship (‘NES’) movement is yet to arrive on African shores. African Evidence scholarship still largely reflects the relatively antiquated ‘golden age of doctrinal Evidence scholarship’, anchored by leading figures such as Bentham, Stephen, Thayer and Wigmore. This essay draws from the clarion call made historically by Biko and Sobukwe, among several other Africans, for Africa to avoid occupying a seat at a table that has already been set for it, typically in Europe. Africa approaches NES relatively late in the game, but it is contended in this essay that this presents the continent with an opportunity to draw insights from the developments of NES in the Euro-American world with a view of making its own contribution to this burgeoning field of scholarship. This essay suggests that the recognition of the special relativity of evidential proof may be a useful foundation for much broader theorising about evidence and proof in Africa. The essay concludes by using two models of proving the conduct and unlawfulness elements of the crime of corruption to illustrate the implications of this probative theory of special relativity.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"178 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45017763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-17DOI: 10.1177/13657127221077330
M. Stockdale, R. Mitchell
Legal advice privilege operates in the corporate context subject to a dominant purpose test and an agency-based control mechanism. This mechanism fails to reflect the privilege's rationale and prevents the dominant purpose test from giving corporations the same level of protection that the privilege provides to other client types. Following analysis of approaches in other common law jurisdictions, this article concludes that the optimum control mechanism for English Law is the dominant purpose test unfettered by the agency-based control mechanism and extended to encompass third parties. It is the first significant attempt to consider the merits of the agency-based control mechanism since the operation of the dominant purpose test in this context was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. It rebuts the suggestion by some academics that legal advice privilege should be restricted in the corporate context by asserting that it is by expansion of the privilege's ambit that consistency of protection across client types will be achieved.
{"title":"Legal advice privilege: The legacy of Three Rivers (No. 5) and the challenge of providing consistent protection to all client types","authors":"M. Stockdale, R. Mitchell","doi":"10.1177/13657127221077330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221077330","url":null,"abstract":"Legal advice privilege operates in the corporate context subject to a dominant purpose test and an agency-based control mechanism. This mechanism fails to reflect the privilege's rationale and prevents the dominant purpose test from giving corporations the same level of protection that the privilege provides to other client types. Following analysis of approaches in other common law jurisdictions, this article concludes that the optimum control mechanism for English Law is the dominant purpose test unfettered by the agency-based control mechanism and extended to encompass third parties. It is the first significant attempt to consider the merits of the agency-based control mechanism since the operation of the dominant purpose test in this context was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. It rebuts the suggestion by some academics that legal advice privilege should be restricted in the corporate context by asserting that it is by expansion of the privilege's ambit that consistency of protection across client types will be achieved.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"157 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42872514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-07DOI: 10.1177/13657127221076172
O. Leclerc, Etienne Vergès, Géraldine Vial
Research on graphical methods of reasoning has made enormous progress since the pioneering work of Wigmore in the early 20th century and its later rediscovery in the 1980s. While the usefulness of graphical methods for student training and research is widely acknowledged, their use by judges remains marginal, if not non-existent, even though this was Wigmore's objective. This article explores the difficulties that graphical methods of reasoning must overcome if they are to be integrated into the practice of the courts, at a time when courts are faced with ever more pressing imperatives of efficiency. The research is based on a partnership with the French School of Magistrates (Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature) and is informed by training courses given to magistrates on the basis of real cases, during which the authors proposed that they implement what we have called the Orderly Method of Evidence Analysis. Although the research confirms the value of graphical methods in promoting rigour in evidential reasoning, it also reaffirms the already clearly identified limits related to their complexity and time-consuming nature. The article also points out the difficulties that still need to be overcome in order to operationalise graphical methods of evidential reasoning, and the difficulties encountered by these methods in avoiding judgment bias.
自20世纪初Wigmore的开创性工作及其后在20世纪80年代的重新发现以来,对图形推理方法的研究取得了巨大进展。尽管图形方法在学生培训和研究中的有用性得到了广泛认可,但法官对它们的使用即使不是不存在,也是微不足道的,尽管这是Wigmore的目标。本文探讨了在法院面临越来越紧迫的效率要求之际,如果要将图解推理方法融入法院实践,就必须克服这些困难。这项研究是基于与法国治安法官学院(Ecole National de la Magistrature)的合作,并根据真实案例为治安法官提供培训课程,在此期间,作者建议他们实施我们所称的有序证据分析方法。尽管这项研究证实了图形方法在提高证据推理的严谨性方面的价值,但它也重申了与复杂性和耗时性相关的已经明确的限制。文章还指出了实现证据推理的图形化方法仍然需要克服的困难,以及这些方法在避免判断偏差方面遇到的困难。
{"title":"Turning a graphical method of evidential reasoning into an operational tool for judges? Empirical evidence","authors":"O. Leclerc, Etienne Vergès, Géraldine Vial","doi":"10.1177/13657127221076172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221076172","url":null,"abstract":"Research on graphical methods of reasoning has made enormous progress since the pioneering work of Wigmore in the early 20th century and its later rediscovery in the 1980s. While the usefulness of graphical methods for student training and research is widely acknowledged, their use by judges remains marginal, if not non-existent, even though this was Wigmore's objective. This article explores the difficulties that graphical methods of reasoning must overcome if they are to be integrated into the practice of the courts, at a time when courts are faced with ever more pressing imperatives of efficiency. The research is based on a partnership with the French School of Magistrates (Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature) and is informed by training courses given to magistrates on the basis of real cases, during which the authors proposed that they implement what we have called the Orderly Method of Evidence Analysis. Although the research confirms the value of graphical methods in promoting rigour in evidential reasoning, it also reaffirms the already clearly identified limits related to their complexity and time-consuming nature. The article also points out the difficulties that still need to be overcome in order to operationalise graphical methods of evidential reasoning, and the difficulties encountered by these methods in avoiding judgment bias.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"136 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44928648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}